Re: CSV (Crocker's draft) good! (evaluation, big suggestion)

Perhaps I'm slow, but I look at this thread and I can't tell whether 
most folks like CSV+NBB.  Greg C seems to like it.
Compared to SPF, it's orders of magnitude less effort to adopt.  It 
doesn't provide accountability as granular as SPF, which is partly why 
it is easier to adopt.
Do we need, e.g. a Wiki table with names in column 1 and contender 
acronyms along the top that folks can fill in?
E.g.
Proposal
Participant  SPF NBB FSV MMark ...

John Smith   -   +        +-

Joe Blow     +   -        ?

Legend (needs work)
+++Favorite
++they like it
+think it has promise
-
--
---fatally flawed

An entry could be a link (e.g to JohnSmith#MMark) that explains the 
person's thoughts more fully.

On 5/6/04 6:38 AM, Tony Finch sent forth electrons to convey:

> Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> wrote:
>  
>
> > The problem with this argument is that CSV lacks the early adopter
> > self-interest motivation of SPF: preventing joe-jobs.
> >    
> SPF doesn't prevent joe-jobs until people start using it to reject
> email. 
If I publish a '-all' in my SPF record, isn't that going to stop 
joe-jobs from every server implementing SPF?
> It doesn't stop collateral spam from systems that don't do
> SPF checks. SES acheives this without co-operation from anyone else.
>
>  
>
> > Well, fundamentally it breaks (for a small subset!) that all mail must
> > be delivered
> >    
> It's an astonishingly bad idea to compromise the reliability of email to
> protect it from spam, especially since breaking it is unnecessary.
>  
I guess you were asleep for the discussions here showing that this is 
obviously false, because our intent is to break email for the emailers 
that are forgers (typically spammers).  Plus what John Kyme just said.